After Chris Huhne's speech at tonight's Bristol Western region hustings, the chair announced breathlessly that "Nick will be roaming". Wow! The Messiah has arrived. Complete with vast photo billboards of his crisp features outside the meeting room! All hail to the new leader!
Except that Chris Huhne's speech was interspersed with applause several times. Nick Clegg's wasn't. At all. Except at the end when he had finished. Clegg paused for applause on at least one occasion but you could hear a pin drop.
Charisma? Yes, Chris Huhne has it. Nick Clegg sometimes forces it through his pores when he pushes very hard. You can see him straining. Nick Clegg is very good looking - but do looks = charisma? Of course not. This man hasn't been oversold by any remote chance has he?
"Aren't you just Cameron-lite?" - asked one questioner of Nick Clegg, to applause and the odd groan.
Nick Clegg started his speech and ended his last question with the point that "We have to start where people are, not where we think they should be". Excellent rhetorical device. Well done. Brilliant soundbite. But really, not very much substance to back it up. Nick Clegg seemed to spend most of his time stating problems with very little in the way of solutions offered.
Chris Huhne made a very meaty speech and seemed extremely passionate - from the heart.
Nick Clegg did a sort of cardboard passion and, on the subject of immigration, to be fair, one spate of what seemed like real passion.
So, after exposure to an excellent hustings (which we were told was the best attended so far) I have not done what I thought I might do. I thought I might go all Cleggy. I didn't. I still need a drip tray due to my admiration for Chris Huhne and I am still baffled by the use of the word "charismatic" to describe Nick Clegg, who looks like he's left the cardboard in his shirt.
Nick Clegg said "address fears - don't pander to them" - good.
Nick Clegg gave me the impression he is still quite inexperienced at this sort of thing. Whereas, Chris Huhne was a model of impeccable, poised, passionate delivery - Totally in control - Clegg, on the other hand, looked as though he could stumble at any second - and he seemed aware of this.
Both candidates said they would give a major role to the other if they won, and also to Ming and Charles if they want it. Marvellous.
Nick Clegg looked like a thrustingly ambitious head of the maths department, while Huhne looked on like a slightly indulgent and charismatic, perhaps quirky, headteacher.
Chris Huhne managed more passion on climate change and our duty to the world's poorest.
"The boldest options are so often the safest options" - Chris Huhne. It made sense, trust me.
Chris Huhne was by far the strongest on the economy. I can't remember any mention of the economy by Nick Clegg, Apologies if I missed it. My goodness, it's nice to hear a Liberal who knows how to run a business and knows his economics - i.e. Huhne.
Huhne got big applause when he spoke about Trident.
Nick Clegg said that he is "liberal to his fingertips on immigration". Oh. So he's not liberal to his fingertips on anything else, is he? Strange thing to say. It's the kind of thing you leave someone else to say.
Nick did get impassioned when he talked about poor people being mucked about by authorities. Full marks for that. "A lady in much distress told me she got six letters from six different people in the housing department on one day." Yes, he was passionate about that. Didn't get any applause though.
It's just that on virtually every question Huhne managed to get in about 20% more substance and passion than Clegg.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Messiah has arrived!
Written by Paul on Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Labels: Chris Huhne, NIck Clegg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Maybe it's a case of lets applaud Huhne publicly but privately vote for Clegg.
Actually your report and thoughts exactly mirror my own feelings towards the contest which is why I'm inclining towards Huhne. However tomorrow's nights QT will be the big one for me as Huhne is sometimes perceived as dry and lees likely to connect with the public.
Rob - thanks for that point with which I entirely agree - QT is crucial. It's all very well getting applause for "preaching to the choir" but the big telly event is the big test!!! Isn't it exciting!
I don't think anyone questions Huhne's abilities, as he has demonstrated over the past two years in particular since he last stood for the leadership but he lacks the ability to connect with voters that Nick seems to have, which is what we need.
As a party we have great policies, great MPs and a great membership but it isn't worth toffee if we don't get votes and win elections and to do that we need to be cynical and burnish our image.
If image didn't matter, the superb Vince Cable would be a shoe-in for leader as he's playing a blinder at the moment.
Sadly it does matter and we need to recognise and respond to it. That's why this cynic is voting for Nick Clegg...
Thanks W&W
"he lacks the ability to connect with voters that Nick seems to have, which is what we need"
Could you let me have the evidence on which you base this assumption?
I think you underestimate the judgment of the public. If "image" was that important, Tom Cruise would be US President and Jonny Wilkinson would be UK Prime Minister.
An excellent post Mr W.
THe 'received wisdom' of the media was that Ming was a 'safe pair of hands' and their preferred choice. Now we have the 'telegenic' and slick Blair / Cameron clone and we are told how charismatic he is....hmmm.....anyone for Blair or Cameron Mk2 ? Maybe somewhat prejudicially Clegg comes across as being too 'Tory' for me....
I have no evidence for my assumption, merely my own impression of the two candidates and anecdotal conversations with various people. I'd say the key is to listen to Chris and Nick not as a party member but as a disaffected voter.
W&W
Wouldn't it be nice to have some polling evidence to support your claim? The IPSOS/Mori trend for environmental issues have recently shown the LibDems taking a clear lead in the public's perception - the only subject on which we have a lead. I contend this is sound evidence of Chris Huhne 'Connecting' with voters.
Chris Huhne looks just as good on telly and, from recent appearances, is just as thrusting as Nick but with a more relaxed, approachable style - almost a bit like Charles Kennedy.
In contrast Nick Clegg while admittedly extremely photogenic, comes across as stiff and lacking substance. Like a cheap copy of Blair/Cameron. I would suggest that the public are rejecting this superficial type of politician and would point out that Brown, with his seriousness, still leads Cameron on being a strong leader and managing the economy.
The public are not so shallow as to look for good looks in a politician. They also look for passion and substance, and Chris Huhne beats Nick Clegg hands down on these.
Hmm reading this post I actually feel like I've been remarkably restrained in my support for Clegg.
I'm with Wit and Wisdom though, I see things from an outsider's point of view and the choice is unimaginably easy for me. Preaching to the choir is the very last thing we should be doing.
Oh yes, Charlotte, it's all so "unimaginably" easy isn't it? Nick is so handsome. Lots of people could jump into bed with him with very little to-do.
The slight snag is that he has cardboard charisma, a lack of substance (compared to Chris) and a lack of experience. And that is quite clear to the "people".
If Nick "connects with people" why the heck aren't we ahead in the polls on home affairs?
And if Chris "doesn't connect with the people" why is the only subject where we are ahead in the polls environmental issues - his brief?
I think you may be oversimplifying the issue of support here. When have the LDs ever done well on home affairs. It's probably the most difficult brief any of our MPs could try to run with.
Conversely, we have a clar track record on green issues and it is very high up the list of people's priorities at the moment so Chris is certainly being helped by the blanket coverage on the issue.
All tht said, I would still happily acknowledge Chris's abilities and his performance on the green agenda. But you haven't swayed me to support him!
Best wishes.
Paul,
I have a lot of time for you, though I´ve fairly often disagreed with your postings - but I have to say that was one of the most annoying & antagonistic pieces that I´ve read during this contest.
I really do wish that Chris´s supporters, such as yourself, Jo Hayes, Matthew Huntbach, Chris Clarke and others would refrain from attacking Nick personally rather than his views.
I have a great deal of respect for Chris, he is real talent and can hold his own against the best Labour & the Tories have, but the same is true of Nick. The diference entween them is that Chris is outlining a platform which is designed to appeal to the small selectorate of LibDem activists, while Nick is trying to reach out beyond the party to the wider electorate.
Bumping along in the mid teens inthe polls, having gone through 2 leaders in as many years, we cannot afford to carry on talking to ourselves instead of the public.
Chris´s programme is indeed ´meaty´it is however wrong. It is not a radical liberal manifesto. Promising to spend more money on services, which will be more local but still run by middle class bureaucrats rather than the people who use them is not a revolution. His policy on Trident is a calculated attempt to rub up the party´s errogenous zones - however it is not much more than a restatement of the policy of a smaller, cheaper, more independent nuclear deterrent that has been party policy in one form or another since the 1980´s. Chris´s genuinely radical big idea - the green tax switch - has been party policy for the last year, ebyond that the new ideas are actually pretty thin.
Well, our party needs more than that.We need to connect with people who share liberal values but have never yet thought of themselves as Lib Dems, we won´t do that by reheating our last 3 party manifestoes.
I believe that there is a candidate who understands that, which is why I´m voting for Nick.
The Daily Politics did one of their 'peoplemeter' surveys with Chris Huhne a few months ago and he managed to achieve positive ratings on virtually all of the points he made.
This was real people, not members, indicating how well they thought he came across.
I have not seen a similar exercise done with Nick Clegg, but I agree with Paul that it is dangerous to base assumptions on how well people come across without checking the evidence.
This is exactly the sort of story that has increasingly put me off Chris. On issues, I like Chris, but the way his campaign has become so nagative whilst his supporters constantly produced quotable lines that our enemies will be keeping to slag Nick off with in months to come just annoys me.
Chris needs to sit down with his team and let his supporters know that the negative stuff is backfiring.
I was there too, though I seem to have been at a different meeting. I came in neutral, and left having decided to support Nick Clegg. Chris was passionate but knocking; Nick was positive and persuasive. There were three key things Nick spoke about that really chimed with me. Firstly, a much greater emphasis than Chris about the environment, and the need to continue to get the message across. Secondly, a concern for and experience with the developing world. And finally, the need to get young people engaged with politics - key to ensuring the future of our party.
Look friends, I can only tell you how I think it is. I did not write this post to annoy or antagonise, I did it merely to speak the truth as I see it - and if we can't share the truth, then there is a problem.
As for giving stories/quotes to the press - pull the other one it's got bells on - they don't need encouragement or material and they have been given plenty about Chris by Linda Jack or Charlotte Gore etc so why the heck should I hold my tongue, Nich?
And by the way, I am not sure that Nick's programme - as he outlines it - does reach out because, as I said, his pitch contained a list of problem statements and precious little in the way of solutions - his speech and answers were very lightweight and high on soundbites.
If Nick is held up as some sort of paragon of Kennedyesque (JF, RF, Charles - take your pick) proportions, then it is only right to report that in the flesh he is very disappointing indeed against the expectations set up by his supporters.
Nich
"..supporters constantly produced quotable lines that our enemies will be keeping to slag Nick off with in months to come just annoys me."
Nich - really! Perhaps you might like to have a think about that one? Perhaps a look back at your post of 2nd July might help the thought processes.
It's full of quotable lines about our leader at the time which our enemies could and indeed did use:
"We were told when Ming was standing to be party leader that Ming's greatest assets were his experience and his judgment. I now believe that these were lies."
"Ming has, for me, shown since his election that he lacks these.
In recent weeks we have seen just how much Ming's judgement has been out of touch."
and there are many more beauts. It was "fill your boots time" really for our enemies, Nich. I contested your points at the time but I respected your right to say those things and I didn't accuse you of disloyalty (if memory serves the worst I accused you of was "making a moutain out of a molehill)- and indeed I took the same stance with Linda when she criticised Ming.
Yes, it is annoying when people write things with which we don't agree.
But let's be consistent here. If we want the right to speak out occasionally, then we need to respect the right of others to speak out saying things which "annoy" us.
As I always quote (Voltaire may have said it):
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Post a Comment